That's one way of putting it. The other way of putting it is that the affected are bearing the cost of climate change imposed on them by the rest of society, who are benefiting.
It sounds like what you're arguing for is that companies ought to have employees that are irreplaceable. Wouldn't that impose a huge risk to the company? If said employee gets hit by the proverbial bus or leaves, the company should just fold?
Companies need to build systems where everyone is replaceable to de-risk the business and not because they don't get programmers.
If a company doesn't have irreplaceable people, then that company is not doing anything interesting. Conversely, if replaceable people can produce your (software) product, then any other company can also do it.
As much as I don't like LLMs that much personally, do you think ChatGPT was produced with replaceable people?
> Companies need to build systems where everyone is replaceable...
No they don't. They need to build systems where everyone is happy with their job and don't need to constantly hop jobs for better salary, environment, etc.
The way to mitigate the bus factor is not to make everybody replaceable; it is to have a process to develop more irreplaceable people with overlapping expertise in their areas.
Overlapping expertise is another form of replacing someone. At a basic level, employees need to go on vacation, parental leave and all sorts of other personal leave. If you were irreplaceable, you couldn't go on leave.
Companies who develop these systems successfully are able to allow employees to go on leave for 4-6 months and have them easily come back. This is a good thing.
But they ( companies ) don't. Looking back at my career, what you do get is, various ranges of alignment to an idea ( whatever it may be ). Some companies do it better than others. Usually, the smaller the company, the easier it is for the owner/founder/main guy to make sure his vision is appropriately enforced, but that gets so much harder in bigger ones so the systems they generate get progressively less sensible. And yes, I don't think search for absolutely replaceable employees shows any kind of faith in one's company. It does, however, show an interesting frame of mind that I personally like to avoid.
For all the talk about innovation, you don't get that by making everyone an interchangeable cog. You want at least some people, who are difficult to be replaced, because they are your competitive edge ( I am saying difficult, because I personally also do not believe anyone is truly irreplaceable ).
And again, the risk to a company, especially a tech company, is falling behind. Losing an employee is a fact of life type of risk; effectively unavoidable. Still, that kind of fake modularity is wrong, not because modularity is a bad idea ( it is not ), but because companies absolutely fucking suck at designing that kind of a system ( as evidenced by reality itself ).
All this is before we get to some of the more human aspect of all this ( up until now we were talking about companies as if they are a living thing with wills and what not and an amalgamation of humans, where one action is a function of thousands little decisions ) like: people messing with systems in a way that does the exact opposite of what the company 'wants'.
All in all, it is an interesting argument, and I even agree with it at some level, but I do not think it survives closer inspection.
I did not understand it that way. Putin is probably smarter than Trump (though he does not deserve to be regarded as a mastermind IMHO). The parallel I find interesting is that both are authoritarians who were helped to power by billionaires who thought it would serve their interests. We know the fate Russian “oligarchs” later met.
Russians close to power have historically often met that fate - at least since 1917, I suspect either prison or forced internal or external exile was more common before that. Americans not so much I think, so this probably won't transfer.
Java was so bad that Android took a hard pivot to Kotlin. If anyone understands the importance of code maintenance, it's Google. They built a language for it (Go). I think it's ok to look at historical Java for what it is and learn from it's mistakes. Modern Java is better. Unfortunately, it's developed a bad rap, and it looks like it's in a decline. Fortunately we have Kotlin, Go, Typescript, etc.
Have you spent a lot of time trying to hire people? I guarantee you there is no shadow council trying to figure out how to hire "busywork" worker bees. This perspective smells completely like "If I were in charge, things would be so much better." Guess what? If you were to take your idea and try to lead this change across a 100 people engineering org, there would be "out of the box thinkers" who would go against your ideas and cause dissent. At that point, guess what? You're going to figure out how to hire compliant people who will execute on your strategy.
"talk about their past projects, their past teams, how they learn, how they collaborate"
You have now excluded amazing engineers who suck at talking about themselves in interviews. They may be great collaborators and communicators, but freeze up selling themselves in an interview.
- “big” tech companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft came up with these types of tech interviews. And there it seems pretty clear that for most of their positions they are looking for cogs
- The vast majority of tech companies have just copied what “big” tech is doing, including tech interviews. These companies may not be looking for cogs, but they are using an interview process that’s not suitable for them
- Very few companies have their own interview process suitable for them. These are usually small companies and therefore the number of engineers in such companies is negligible to be taken into account (most likely, less than 1% of the audience here work at such companies)
And what is wrong with being a cog? Not everyone is going to invent the next ai innovation and not everyone is cut out to build the next hot programming language.
Bugs need to be fixed. Features need to be implemented. If it weren't for cogs, you'd have people just throwing new projects over the fence and dropped 6 months after release. Don't want to be another cog? Join a startup. Plenty of those hiring. The reality is that when you work at a large company, you're one of 50,000 people. By definition, only 1% are in the top 1%.
Someone has to wash the dishes and clear the tables. Let's stop looking down at jobs just because it's not hot and sexy. People who show up and provide value is great and should be appreciated.
The interview process being a circus of how many hoops you'll jump through. Which in this case is upwards of 3 months of trivia, beauracracy, and politics. And these days they don't even give you the grace of a response; they may just ghost you.
But being a cog itself is personally fine. Work to live, not live to work. But leading people on to drop them on the tip of a hat is disrespectful of everyone's time. At least a 1-2 stage interview for a dishwasher or table busser is only wasting a few hours per role applied. Time is the most valuable resource we have, of course people want to use it carefully.
Human cogs are going to be phased out. I'm not an AI doomer who thinks engineers are going to be replaced across the board, but the need for a human being who functions like a robot is going away fast. We need humans to do what humans do well, and humans don't do well as cogs in a machine—machines are better at that role.
The days of leetcode interviews are numbered not because they're too easy to cheat at, but because they were always optimizing for the wrong traits in most companies that cargo culted them, and even the companies that used them correctly (Big Tech) are going to rapidly need a different type of interview for the new types of hires they need.
> You have now excluded amazing engineers who suck at talking about themselves in interviews. They may be great collaborators and communicators, but freeze up selling themselves in an interview.
This is the job of a good interviewer. I've run the gauntlet from terrible to great answers to the exact same questions depending on the interviewer. If you literally just ask that question out of the blue, you'll either get a bad or rehearsed response. If you establish some rapport, and ask it in a more natural way, you'll get a more natural answer.
It's not easy, but neither is being on the other side of the interviewer, and that's never been accepted as an excuse
> I guarantee you there is no shadow council trying to figure out how to hire "busywork" worker bees.
The council itself is made of "busywork" worker bees. Slave hiring slaves - the vast majority of IT interviewers and candidates are idiot savants - they know very little outside of IT, or even realize that there is more to life than IT.
> You have now excluded amazing engineers who suck at talking about themselves in interviews. They may be great collaborators and communicators, but freeze up selling themselves in an interview.
This was the norm until perhaps for about the last 10-15 years of Software Engineering.
> I guarantee you there is no shadow council trying to figure out how to hire "busywork" worker bees.
I didn't say that. I said that this style of interview was designed to hire pluggable cogs. As others have noted, that was the correct move for Big Tech and was cargo culted into a bunch of other companies that didn't know why their interviews were shaped the way they were.
> there would be "out of the box thinkers" who would go against your ideas and cause dissent. At that point, guess what? You're going to figure out how to hire compliant people who will execute on your strategy.
In answer to your original question: yes, I'm actively involved in hiring at a 100+ person engineering org that hires this way. And no, we're not looking to figure out how to hire compliant people, we're hiring engineers who will push back and do what works well, not just act because an executive says so.
> You have now excluded amazing engineers who suck at talking about themselves in interviews. They may be great collaborators and communicators, but freeze up selling themselves in an interview.
Only if you suck at making people comfortable and at understanding different (potentially awkward) communication styles. You don't have to discriminate against people for being awkward, that's a choice you can make. You can instead give them enough space to find their train of thought and pursue it, and it does work—I recently sat in on an interview like that with someone who fits your description exactly, and we strongly recommended him.
As a modern day tech person, you only spend 4 hours a week on your keyboard across browsers, email, messaging, command line, etc? What about your personal life?
Even then, learning Vim could improve your computer interactions easily by 10%. That's 40 min a week or ~34 hours in a year.
Wait so there was near universal outcry on the left about “Jan 6 insurrection” but assassination of public figures is actually fine if they have a low approval rating and allegedly negatively affect people’s lives?
It sounds like you're saying people should have the same attitude towards a mob storming the capital on the claim of a stolen election vs a man who systematically oppressed those who are ill, and arguably stole from them as well?
I don't wish harm on anyone but these are two very morally different situations, which require very different responses.
Also it is not clear to me that those who are outraged at the CEO is on the left. I'd imagine that the right is equally denied of health coverage while ill, and it seems plausible that they would be just as angry as those on the left.
Most of us can't remember more than one password. This means that if one site is compromised, then the attacker now has access to multiple sites. A password manager mitigates this issue.
People used to memorize the phone numbers of all important family members and close friends without much trouble. Anyone without a serious disability should have no trouble memorizing multiple passwords.
Sure, I do use password managers for random sites and services but I probably have at lower double digit amount of passwords memorized for the stuff that matters. Especially for stuff that I want to be able to access in an emergency when my phone/laptop gets stolen.
People used to memorize a few phone numbers, likely less than 10, and used notebooks made specifically for writing down phone numbers to keep track of the rest.
Phone numbers of the people you called the most (the 10 you memorized) were overwhelmingly likely to be local numbers, so you were only memorizing (3 number chunk) + (4 number chunk). Password rules are all over the place. Memorizing numbers, letters, whole words, the capitalization of those letters and words, and special characters, that are far longer than ye olde timey phone numbers, is orders of magnitude more difficult.
I have over 100 passwords in my password manager. They are all unique, so if any one is compromised, it is contained. My password manager is protected by strong 2FA, so someone would have to physically interact with my property to gain access. In the real world, there is no scenario where memorizing all your passwords is more secure.
They did not. They had papers with all those numbers written down next to landline phones. They also had little notebooks they carried everywhere with them with those numbers written down. You could buy those little notebooks in any store and they fitted into a pocket.
Moreover, those numbers did not changed for years and years. Unlike passwords that change, like, every 3 months.
"MyPasswordIsSecureDespiteNotBeingComplexBecauseItIsLong_BobsForum" is great until Bob's Forum gets hacked and it turns out that they were storing your password in plain text and your password of "MyPasswordIsSecureDespiteNotBeingComplexBecauseItIsLong_Google" becomes easily guessed.
You need a pattern that only you recognise/understand, not just remember. It takes only one leak of your password from service FooBar that looks like "f....b" to know what to try on other sites. Patterns easy to remember are mostly easy to understand.
There are so many ways to teach kids to code and read that a smartphone/tablet is totally unnecessary. I refuse to believe for a second that my kids are at any disadvantage for not having screen time at home.
That's one way of putting it. The other way of putting it is that the affected are bearing the cost of climate change imposed on them by the rest of society, who are benefiting.